Kent State at Texas A&M Week 1 College Football Matchup Kent State at Texas A&M Matchup - Week 1
Sun, Sep 5 2021 · Week 1 · 🏟 Kyle Field College Station, TX · Turf · 102,733 cap
Kent State✈ 1,109 mi-1 hr TZ
10 41
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Kent State
17
Texas A&M
46
P&R Line Texas A&M -29
P&R Total O/U 62
Confidence 90 High
Vegas Texas A&M -29.5 · O/U 67.0
Matchup Prediction
Toss-up — no clear edge
Neither metric shows a meaningful pre-game edge in this matchup.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -29.5
O/U 67.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Texas A&M · 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Kent State 2021 Schedule
Kent State's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Kent State at Texas A&M+29.5L10–4167.0L10–41UN
Sat 9/11Kent State vs VMI-19.0W60–1073.0W60–10UY
Sat 9/18Kent State at Iowa+22.0L7–3055.5L7–30UN
Sat 9/25Kent State at Maryland+13.0L16–3771.5L16–37UN
Sat 10/2Kent State vs Bowling Green-16.5W27–2056.0W27–20UN
Sat 10/9Kent State vs Buffalo-7.0W48–3866.0W48–38OY
Sat 10/16Kent State at Western Michigan+7.0L31–6468.5L31–64ON
Sat 10/23Kent State at Ohio-5.0W34–2768.5W34–27UY
— Bye Week —
Wed 11/3Kent State vs Northern Illinois-3.5W52–4772.0W52–47OY
Wed 11/10Kent State at Central Michigan+2.5L30–5476.5L30–54ON
Sat 11/20Kent State at Akron-13.5W38–072.5W38–0UY
Sat 11/27Kent State vs Miami (OH)+1.0W48–4768.0W48–47OY
Sat 12/4Kent State vs Northern Illinois-3.5L23–4175.5L23–41UN
Tue 12/21Kent State vs Wyoming+3.0L38–5261.0L38–52ON
Texas A&M 2021 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2021 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/4Texas A&M vs Kent State-29.5W41–1067.0W41–10UY
Sat 9/11Texas A&M vs Colorado-17.5W10–751.0W10–7UN
Sat 9/18Texas A&M vs New Mexico-30.5W34–049.5W34–0UY
Sat 9/25Texas A&M vs Arkansas-4.5L10–2047.0L10–20UN
Sat 10/2Texas A&M vs Mississippi State-7.0L22–2645.5L22–26ON
Sat 10/9Texas A&M vs Alabama+18.5W41–3850.5W41–38OY
Sat 10/16Texas A&M at Missouri-11.5W35–1459.0W35–14UY
Sat 10/23Texas A&M vs South Carolina-19.0W44–1446.0W44–14OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/6Texas A&M vs Auburn-4.5W20–349.5W20–3UY
Sat 11/13Texas A&M at Ole Miss-1.0L19–2957.5L19–29UN
Sat 11/20Texas A&M vs Prairie View A&M-41.5W52–350.0W52–3OY
Sat 11/27Texas A&M at LSU-6.0L24–2747.0L24–27ON
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2021 season
Texas A&M PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Texas A&M
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Texas A&M
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Texas A&M
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Kent State
+0.313
Texas A&M
+0.486
Texas A&M Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Kent State
+0.317
Texas A&M
+0.567
Texas A&M Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Kent State
0.153
Texas A&M
0.193
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Texas A&M Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Kent State
+5.799
Texas A&M
+8.312
Texas A&M Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Kent State
+0.869
Texas A&M
+0.934
Texas A&M Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Kent State
70.6
Texas A&M
72.0
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Kent State Edge
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2021 season · Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Texas A&M Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Kent State
-16.7
Texas A&M
14.3
Offense Rating
Kent State
7.5
Texas A&M
22.5
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Kent State
24.2
Texas A&M
8.1
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Kent State Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Kent State #61
0.00
Texas A&M #21
0.00
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Kent State #106
0.00
Texas A&M #7
0.00
Kent State +0.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? Kent State Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Kent State #1
0.0
Texas A&M #1
0.0
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Kent State #80
0.0
Texas A&M #35
0.0
Kent State +0.0
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 0 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

Both metrics agree on Texas A&M, but the GC edge is small. When metrics agree but GC is near-neutral, the agreed-upon team has covered only 46.7% of the time historically (n=224) — potentially a fade signal.

ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.

Coaching Matchup
Kent State
Sean Lewis #1
13–19 (41%) · Yr 4 at school
OC Andrew Sowder Yr 1 #1
DC Tom Kaufman Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Texas A&M
Jimbo Fisher #1
29–10 (74%) · Yr 4 at school
OC Darrell Dickey Yr 1 #1
DC Mike Elko Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games.

Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself